DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 9, the limitation “the first and second filters” are not in claim 2 in which claim 9 is dependent. The two filters are mentioned in claim 3, but not claim 2. For examining purposes the first and second filter will be part of the optical portion of claim 2. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711).
Re claim 1: Blonigan teaches a method for monitoring a plasma output from a plasma device used to clean an object (abstract, fig. 2), the method comprising: identifying a first wavelength of light emitted by the plasma output to be monitored (filter 34 identifies emission line/wavelength of cleaning gas of plasma, paragraph 33, cleaning gas); sensing an intensity of the first wavelength of light (detector 30 behind filter 34 detects intensity, paragraph 35); identifying a second wavelength of light emitted by the plasma output as a baseline (filter 32 identifies emission line/wavelengths of background gas of plasma for a baseline, paragraph 35); sensing an intensity of the second wavelength of light (detector 30 behind filter 32 detects intensity, paragraph 35); comparing the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light (ratio of the intensity of the first wavelength and the intensity of the second wavelength, paragraph 44); and determining whether a relationship between the sensed intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light falls within an acceptable threshold (abstract, paragraphs 44 and 45).
Re claim 2: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light are sensed using a sensor arrangement (39) including a photodetector (30) integrated with an optical system (32 and 34) (see fig. 2).
Re claim 3: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the intensity of the first wavelength of light is sensed by locating the sensor (30) arrangement behind a first filter (34) that transmits the first wavelength of light, and the intensity of second wavelength of light is sensed by locating the sensor (30) arrangement behind a second filter (32) that transmits the second wavelength of light (see fig. 2, paragraph 35).
Re claim 5: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the sensor arrangement (39) includes a first photodetector (30 behind filter 34) fixedly mounted with respect to the first filter (34) and a second photodetector (30 behind filter 32) fixedly mounted with respect to the second filter (32) for concurrently sensing the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light (see fig. 2).
Re claim 11: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the first wavelength of light is identified by choosing a wavelength of light corresponding to a prominent intensity peak associated with one or more gases comprised in the plasma output (prominent intensity peak in the cleaning gas is chosen, fluorine, paragraph 33 and 34).
Re claim 16: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein monitoring of the plasma output includes isolating an effect of the intensity of the first wavelength of light from an effect of the intensity of the second wavelength of light (the filter 34 isolates the first wavelength from wavelength of background, paragraph 35).
Re claim 17: Blonigan teaches the method, further comprising the step of stopping the plasma output to prevent inadequate cleaning of subsequent objects when the relationship between the sensed intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light falls outside the acceptable threshold (paragraphs 44 and 45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711) in view of Koshimizu (US 5290383).
Re claim 8: Blonigan teaches the method, teaches the photodetector (30) (fig. 2), but does not specifically teach wherein the photodetector is selected from the group consisting of a photodiode, a photomultiplier, a spectrometer, a CCD sensor and a CMOS sensor. Koshimizu teaches wherein a photodetector is selected from the group consisting of a photodiode, a photomultiplier, a spectrometer, a CCD sensor and a CMOS sensor (photodiodes, col. 16, lines 58-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use photodiode as the photodetector in Blonigan similar to Koshimizu in order to improve signal output with smaller design providing for compact efficient light detection.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711) in view of Shi et al. (CN 118150552).
Re claim 9: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the intensity of the first wavelength of light is sensed by locating the sensor (30) arrangement behind a first filter (34) that transmits the first wavelength of light, and the intensity of second wavelength of light is sensed by locating the sensor (30) arrangement behind a second filter (32) that transmits the second wavelength of light (see fig. 2, paragraph 35), the filters (32 and 34) are positioned to an intermediate location between the plasma device (133/59/57) and the photodetector for sensing the first and the second wavelengths (see fig. 2), but does not specifically teach wherein the first and second filters are mounted on a movable platform adjacent to each other, to enable either the first filter or the second filter to be positioned to an intermediate location between the plasma device and the photodetector for sensing either the first wavelength or the second wavelength of light. Shi teaches wherein first and second filters (filters on filter wheel 1) are mounted on a movable platform adjacent to each other, to enable either the first filter or the second filter to be positioned to an intermediate location between the plasma and the photodetector (2) for sensing either the first wavelength or the second wavelength of light (see fig. 1 and 2, machine translation under specific implementation examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a filter wheel to rotate the filters over a single detector similar to Shi with the system of Blonigan reducing the number of detectors providing for more compact design.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711) in view of Sakano et al. (US 20050125090).
Re claim 10: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the plasma output is sensed by the sensor arrangement during cleaning (abstract), but does not specifically teach both before and after the object is cleaned by the plasma device. Sakano teaches wherein a plasma output is sensed by a sensor arrangement (19) both before and after an object is cleaned by the plasma device (paragraphs 48, 52 and 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include measurements before and after the cleaning with the endpoint sensor of Blonigan similar to Sakano in order to determine abnormalities before and after the cleaning process providing for efficient plasma processing and cleaning.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711) in view of Ohuchi et al. (US 20040144491).
Re claim 12: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the prominent intensity peak is caused by fluorine plasma comprised in the plasma output (prominent intensity peak in the cleaning gas is chosen, fluorine, paragraph 33 and 34), but does not specifically teach hydrogen. Ohuchi teaches wherein the prominent intensity peak is caused by hydrogen plasma comprised in the plasma output (paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to detect an intensity peak for hydrogen similar to Ohuchi with the detection of Blonigan in order to monitor plasma gases with hydrogen atoms used in plasma processes and cleaning providing for a more versatile design.
Re claim 13: Blonigan as modified by Ohuchi teaches the method, further comprising monitoring variations in a density of the hydrogen plasma over time (Ohuchi, paragraph 76 and 77, Blonigan, abstract).
Re claim 14: Blonigan as modified by Ohuchi teaches the method, wherein the prominent intensity peak corresponds to a hydrogen-alpha emission (Ohuchi, paragraph 75 and 76, 656 nm is hydrogen alpha spectral line).
Re claim 19: Blonigan teaches the method, wherein the plasma output comprises a mixture of plasma gases (paragraphs 33, 35, 44 and 45), but does not specifically teach hydrogen. Ohuchi teaches wherein the plasma output comprises a mixture of plasma gases, including hydrogen plasma (paragraph 76 and 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a mix of gases including hydrogen similar to Ohuchi with the detection of Blonigan in order to monitor plasma gases with hydrogen atoms used in plasma processes and cleaning providing for a more versatile design.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonigan et al. (US 20030159711) in view of Bormashenko et al. (US 20170036184).
Re claim 18: Blonigan teaches a method for monitoring a plasma output from a plasma device used to clean an object (abstract, fig. 2), but does not specifically teach wherein the plasma device is an atmospheric pressure plasma jet. Bomashenko teaches wherein a plasma device is an atmospheric pressure plasma jet (fig. 2, paragraph 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an atmospheric pressure plasma jet as the plasma device of Blonigan similar to Bormashenko in order to measure the specific wavelengths from the plasma produced by the jet providing for better endpoint cleaning measurements using the jet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method as claimed in claims 3, 2 and 1, more specifically in combination with wherein the plasma device is movable relative to the first and second filters for directing the plasma output towards the first and second filters respectively, to enable the sensor arrangement to separately sense the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light.
In regards to claim 6, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method as claimed in claims 2 and 1, more specifically in combination with wherein the plasma device is reciprocally positionable between a location over the object for cleaning the object and a location over the sensor arrangement for the sensor arrangement to sense the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light.
Claim 7 is objected to because of its dependency on claim 6.
In regards to claim 15, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method as claimed in claims 11 and 1, more specifically in combination with wherein the first wavelength of light is selected within a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the prominent intensity peak, and the second wavelength of light is selected outside the FWHM.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Markle et al. (US 6046796) teaches a method for monitoring a plasma output from a plasma device used to clean an object (abstract, col. 3, lines 19-50), the method comprising: identifying a first wavelength of light emitted by the plasma output to be monitored (col. 10, lines 9-21); sensing an intensity of the first wavelength of light (col. 9, lines 25-45 and col. 10, lines 9-21); identifying a second wavelength of light emitted by the plasma output as a baseline (col. 10, lines 9-21, stable wavelength); sensing an intensity of the second wavelength of light (col. 9, lines 25-45 and col. 10, lines 9-21); comparing the intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light (ratio of the intensity of the first wavelength and the intensity of the second wavelength, col. 9, lines 25-45); and determining whether a relationship between the sensed intensities of the first and second wavelengths of light falls within an acceptable threshold (col. 9, lines 25-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights